Counters

[varsovie]

Leader assignment and promotion is an example of one of the things I didn't often bother with in other versions of HOI. I know other players are really into it and if it makes the game more fun for them, great.

Yes BUT oh god, please don't make me set every commander of my 500+ divisions. :O


Really for supply A) take the AoD system as it is B) Remove reliance on the capital, maybe if all "victory points" could work as supply depots it should be ok. C) Slow the shit down of nval transport

 

[Dalwin]

The removal of food in any impactful way has also effected the game in such that some nations were major suppliers of food stuffs and now have little or no strategic value. Even though its on a sexy subject and most players arent all that interested it is and always have been a valuable issue in warfare.

True but if you are making a list of things to abstract out in the name of simplification, that is one that I can live with. Especially if the tradeoff is a supply net that includes the concept of railheads and rail transport or a system where weather really matters.

Food was absolutely important, easily one of the top three supply types in importance (only not a lock on number one becasue it is harder to scrounge for fuel or ammo). However I think the only real effect of abstracting food out is what that does to the economy of some nations or regions and I think there are ways to adjust for it. What is lost in regional importance there is I think more than made up for by needing to acquire sources of some materials to be able to produce certain things. Now we will actually have reasons to want some places that are better than "Hitler wanted it so I should too."

 

[21oliver]

The importance of Ploeisti to Hitler is lost in the current system. Hopefully trade will get adjusted better.

Sorry for the derail here guys!

 

[Dalwin]

Back to the subject of counters, my affinity for them is based on what I suspect is not uncommon. I started playing wargames on paper maps with cardboard counters. On some level anything else doesn't feel right.

The real question boils down to which pieces of information to include on the counters. You want to keep them simple and not have them be cluttered with too many things. What might be cool would be if there were different counter display modes the same way that there are map display modes. That would give us the option to have the counters display the information that is most important to our individual tastes and play styles.

 

[21oliver]

I agree, but thats asking for alot more work and we know the answer to that. More options is always good. For example like the options available for the map display, i think that was well done.

 

[Porkman]

Great minds think alike! A short while back i suggested that similar buffs/nerfs be implemented into the game, i specifically mentioned Russia and China.

I have called for such things because all the key elements (weather, terrain, supply, attrition, casualties etc...) are not really represented well enough. Also Org instead of casualties deciding combat is horrible. Im so tired of winning a battle and neither side taking a single casualty. The same unit lasting for years with no reinforcement never having been destroyed. Also we are not required any real downtime to recuperate and re-organize. This allows us say as Turkey to take a dozen infantry divisions and attack Greece, the day after Greece falls we attack Bulgaria, the day after Bulgaria falls we attack Yugoslavia and so on...

I proposed that each nation would have a military assessment ratiing (A-B-C-D etc...) based on their Military leadership, training, and so on.... If Im Turkey and My Military rating is say D, im pretty much a WW1 style army. I indicate to my General Staff I want to invade Greece. regardless of what my threa/neutrality is, they come back with a random determination modified by my rating, in this case it may be 6 months until they have a solid plan to to invade Greece. It doesnt matter if i have all my units on the Greek border i cannot invade until the time is up. Likewise after the completion of a campaign, there would be a re-organization and recuperation period (also modified and determined by my military rating), and then i would have to plan all over again for my next campaign.

While most players wouldnt like being restricted so, it would clearly give a more realistic account. Realistically speaking a nation like Turkey could at best hope for one or two victories in the period surrounding WW2. No more minors conquering the world (unless you play in sandbox mode). Remember Germany took Poland in 39, France in 40 and attacked the Soviet Union in 41. We are able to game the system attacking multiple nations at once with no planning and no rest in between campaigns. Too gamey for my tastes...

The devs are on the record saying that there is a bonus for preplanning your orders long in advance and sticking to a battleplan. Depending on how this is done, you could get a situation where your troops have to stop since they won't be powerful when attacking without the planning bonus.

 

[21oliver]

What im proposing in the above situation would remove the huge empires being created unrealistically and provide a more realistic way war was operated. It sounds like a step in that direction. But bonus or no bonus players shouldnt be allowed to invade anyone without some "downtime" for their military to prepare, and then there needs to be downtime after the resolution prior to any additional combat. Im not talking in between battles but rather in between campaigns. Then as i suggested in other posts a better applied effects from attrition, weather, terrain, supply, casualties instead of org loss in combat, no simple VP snatches.... would lead to longer drawn out campaigns which would take their toll on nations. For example if I played Turkey and managed to annex Greece and possibly Bulgaria, that should be considered a very successful WW2 game for me, not me taking all of North Africa, the Middle east and parts of the Soviet Union, which simply wouldnt happen. The game could always have a sandbox option for those who wanted it, but i think the suggestions contained in this post would provide a more realistic account.

Were getting sidetracked again...back to counters and too much or too little info!

 

[Stafroty]

creation of supply depots would make that kind of prebattle planning possible. Just start stack supply before battle so there is that when needed. Just make attacking units using supplies 2 x more than defending ones, and 2 times more (day than moving one in free province) what for sure would suck some serious amounts of supply, and could not be upkeeped without really damn good infra behind them, or without depot if no good infra there. Supply depot of some kind /in some form needs to be there so there is short distance for troops to get them.

and that kinda works as planning in that part.

Perhaps making that planning tool ("HoIPaint") make significance with big and small lines etc. Perhaps include also a supply calculator that how far about certain supply amount for selected size of army can carry them while in battle. So you know how much more supply would you need as well, then be able to plan your attacks with tht info, to make destination point somewhere there, where attacking forces deploy in defence, to be refitted, re stocked with supply, given rest, given maintenance to motor eguipment etc, which would take 2-3 days.